# data[].attributes.headline
Beyond reasonable doubt indicates that there is room for doubt, but it is still OK to convict as guilty!

# data[].attributes.subject
Beyond reasonable doubt indicates that there is room for doubt, but it is still OK to convict as guilty!

# data[].attributes.headline
Certainty as a concept is too subjective 

# data[].attributes.subject
Certainty as a concept is too subjective 

# data[].attributes.body
Being ‘sure’ is dependent upon one’s own subjective understanding. I am sure because that is what I am told. Or I am sure because I can prove this. There demonstrates an issue therein that how does one quantify certainty? What is 70% sure? These are issues in and of itself not only the question but in the way that people address their understandings of certainty.

There are those who firmly believe in concepts simply because that is what they have been told to be certain of. Yet there requires no evidence to back up this certainty. There is no such think as a universal level of certainty. An ideolog can be presented with categorical, undisputable evidence, anstill reject is as uncertain because that contradicts their idea of certainty, and hence is uncertain

# data[].attributes.body
Reasonable doubt is based on the evidence presented in the case, or lack thereof.

# data[].attributes.body
Being sure means that there are no other possibilities that could come to light- it must be the only thing that the evidence is committed to

# data[].attributes.body
Beyond reasonable doubt - 99%. Sure - 80%. Firmly convinced - 90%.

# data[].attributes.headline
 The defendant is presumed innocent unless there is proof that makes you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.- This appears to be the highest threshold.

# data[].attributes.subject
 The defendant is presumed innocent unless there is proof that makes you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.- This appears to be the highest threshold.

# data[].attributes.body
To be sure means to be convinced that the person did it. To the lights of all the elements, to be convinced that it is not possible that he is innocent. If there is no others ways or persons or doubts in the reflexion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Very difficult to tell the difference between what the three mean. If that's difficult for us as lawyers in the making, jurors are just gonna go with whatever presupposed idea they have of what it means to be guilty.

# data[].attributes.subject
Very difficult to tell the difference between what the three mean. If that's difficult for us as lawyers in the making, jurors are just gonna go with whatever presupposed idea they have of what it means to be guilty.

# data[].attributes.body
Terrorism act- imposes a reverse burden.

# data[].attributes.body
TA 2000 - Surely it is easier for the prosecution to prove that D was involved in a terrorist organisation than for D to disprove this?

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, 100% imposes a reverse burden!

# data[].attributes.body
S5 road traffic act - no reverse burden? Evidential burden and then the prosecution to prove? Trade marks act - no reverse burden? Prosecution to prove if it was reasonable or not? Terrorism act - reverse burden - maybe we are harsher in contexts of terrorism so this could be justified on grounds of national security.

# data[].attributes.body
s.5 RTA- surely would be hard to prove he was not under the influence if the police have taken a sample of breath, blood or urine

# data[].attributes.headline
Issue comes about when we try to appreciate the the term 'justifiable' - who's standard makes this call?

# data[].attributes.subject
Issue comes about when we try to appreciate the the term 'justifiable' - who's standard makes this call?

# data[].attributes.body
The Terrorism burden reflects modern attitudes on the ‘War on Terror’ post-Blair that allow for a ‘By-any-means-necessary’ argument, that will happily take shots across the bow of individual civil liberties in the pursuit of this nirvana’d end goal. While some right thinking members of ourselves may argue that the burden to demonstrate that one is not engaging in an activity, when the whole crime is that you ARE engaging in the activity, cuts at the route of innocent until proven guilty. Yet the mass Daily Mail/The Sun reading public, hopped up on 16 years of Jingoism is much more likely to accept this as simply the means to an end, judging from the parapet and willing to execute before the inquisition. This idea that we now meet a threat that is so extreme that we need to cast away with these fundamental liberties denies history. We have consistently been at ‘war’ with something. Be it the 1920s suffragetes, be it the Weimar republic, the communists, there has always been an issue, and we have always passed this off as justifiable as "well, its never been this bad" - why does this 'domsetic terrorism' and the 'war' against it, operating against the state of the time (supposedly) have any existence other than equal to any 'external terrorism'